lucas park

resurrectus · PostNov 26, 2007#3512007-11-26T19:39+00:00

zink wrote:The public library is right next to the park where a lot of homeless go to go on the computer or just relax and read.

You think that the hobos go to that library to read books and to use the computers!?!

I frequently go to that library, and the overwhelming majority of the hobos are either hanging out in the restrooms or sitting at the large tables talking. If the library were an abandoned building without books, then it would attract the same number of hobos (if not more). Sad, but true.

Alex Ihnen · PostNov 26, 2007#3522007-11-26T20:01+00:00

True. Unfortunately most people no longer feel ownership of public libraries or parks. Until they do, it will be too easy to cede these to those who do not respect them.

chiheaddoc · PostNov 26, 2007#3532007-11-26T20:10+00:00

I used to study at the Schlafly Branch of the SLPL in the CWE, and they would not allow the homeless to loiter inside. There were cops who would actually ask them to leave--which was not always easy, as you can imagine. Apparently this not the case at the downtown branch?

bonwich · PostNov 26, 2007#3542007-11-26T20:19+00:00

There's an entire policy on homeless patrons on the American Library Association's website, www.ala.org. Meanwhile, here's an interesting recent article on the subject from a librarian in Salt Lake City. As usual, it isn't exactly cut and dried.

Homeless patrons in libraries

Alex Ihnen · PostNov 26, 2007#3552007-11-26T20:20+00:00

^ Also seemingly no longer the case at the Schlafly Branch. The couple times I've been in there it was tuff to find a seat and when I did it was next to an individual who smelled horribly and often had a couple bags of possessions with them. In that atmosphere even an open seat isn't so inviting - who sat there before me? I'm guessing no one uses a disinfectant wipe on the seat each night.

innov8ion · PostNov 26, 2007#3562007-11-26T20:28+00:00

Good research, bonwich. This appears to be the ALA policy to which he refers: http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/g ... espoor.htm.

I'm not so sure that the St. Louis Public Library System needs a homeless policy as opposed to a policy that details acceptable and unacceptable behaviors in the library. I believe that people take issue with negative behaviors only. Suffice to say, but policy should also be enforced as well.

Edit and fyi, here is the policy for appropriate use of our public libraries: http://www.slpl.org/slpl/library/Article240096442.asp

Here is an easier version of the policy that I marked up with the relevant items: http://r0.sharedcopy.com/46oocm. It looks to be a good policy. Why is it not enforced?

resurrectus · PostNov 26, 2007#3572007-11-26T20:33+00:00

innov8ion wrote:And who's being "uppity doopity dop" as Mr. homeless dude says on the Fox bit? Is it the downtown residents who care both about the homeless and want a clean park or is it Missouri Baptist University who shuns helping strategic homeless organizations and instead contribute to the problem? Gee, I'm glad you feel better, Missouri Baptist University. Christ sure as hell wouldn't flip the bird to downtown residents like these kids do. No, he'd help the homeless and be respectful to residents as well. Shame on you, Missouri Baptist University!

Leave it to Fox News to air the homeless' side (if you can interpret that), but not air one single resident's side. If being "uppity doopity dop" means keeping a clean trash-free neighborhood, then how is that not fair?

the central scrutinizer · PostNov 26, 2007#3582007-11-26T20:39+00:00

I would impose a user fee for libraries. $10 for a 1 year membership. That would keep the homeless out.

doug · PostNov 26, 2007#3592007-11-26T21:43+00:00

Libraries should be free as they always have been.

In Chicago homeless use the cultural center without any problems. Many different people use that space without incident.

Saying we should exclude the homeless from the library is about the most counterproductive idea. If anything we should be glad they are in the library. Moreover, I see the homeless reading quite often. We shouldn't let the actions of some define the entire group.

southcitygent · PostNov 26, 2007#3602007-11-26T21:51+00:00

They have a user fee, its called taxes.

southsidepride · PostNov 26, 2007#3612007-11-26T21:54+00:00

The libararies should not discriminate based on someone's address (or lack thereof) but if anyone homeless or not, behaves loudly and as an offensive odor I would prefer they be asked to leave.

matt · PostNov 26, 2007#3622007-11-26T21:58+00:00

I'm not kidding when I relate that my closest vagrants migrate south in the winter. I'll see them again next spring back on my street. Yes, they suffer from multiple addictions and diseases. They also have a right to live as they do. According to their own words, they prefer the lifestyle of living on the streets.

innov8ion · PostNov 26, 2007#3632007-11-26T22:04+00:00

Right, being homeless is not a crime. Enforcing legitimate policy would seem appropriate to most, I'd think.

the central scrutinizer · PostNov 26, 2007#3642007-11-26T22:53+00:00

southcitygent wrote:They have a user fee, its called taxes.

Except the homeless don't pay them.

doug · PostNov 26, 2007#3652007-11-26T23:09+00:00

^Whenever they make a purchase they pay the sales tax. It is illogical to ask them to pay the earnings or property taxes since they have neither job nor home.

resurrectus · PostNov 27, 2007#3662007-11-27T01:02+00:00

Doug wrote:^Whenever they make a purchase they pay the sales tax.

The money that they are using to make those purchases is often from begging or theft.

MattnSTL · PostNov 27, 2007#3672007-11-27T01:10+00:00

^You are a very good generalizer...

jcity · PostNov 27, 2007#3682007-11-27T04:26+00:00

Matt, save the bleeding heart condescending crap. It's beginning to get old. sorry. I agree with you on some topics, but give it a rest. you're so enlightened being so far left on EVERY single issue. How old, just out of curiosity? You make personal insults to people, expect the same thing back.

jlblues · PostNov 27, 2007#3692007-11-27T04:42+00:00

You guys are clearly all "uppity doopity dop"!

MattnSTL · PostNov 27, 2007#3702007-11-27T05:18+00:00

You posting to me or MDTH, or one of the other 25 Matt's here?

innov8ion · PostNov 27, 2007#3712007-11-27T06:14+00:00

warwickland · PostNov 27, 2007#3722007-11-27T06:18+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:You posting to me or MDTH, or one of the other 25 Matt's here?

just checking in.

matt · PostNov 27, 2007#3732007-11-27T15:13+00:00

I've seen recent information that places the annual costs to local government for services to vagrants or the homeless at $60,000 to $70,000. Some with health conditions can make this figure go up substantially.

So it now becomes a business proposition for city government and housed residents. We can no longer afford the problem. Our vagrant and homeless neighbors may be costing all of us and the city of St. Louis something like $105,000,000 per year ($70,000 X 1,200 persons).

But...some of the largest barriers to solving vagrancy and homelessness, according to the federal government, are put up by the homeless social services industry.

doug · PostNov 27, 2007#3742007-11-27T18:08+00:00

Resurrectus wrote:
Doug wrote:^Whenever they make a purchase they pay the sales tax.
The money that they are using to make those purchases is often from begging, theft, or Social Security (AKA crazy checks).

Even if you are correct, and you are stereotyping, they are still paying taxes.

gelatinousendive · PostNov 27, 2007#3752007-11-27T18:40+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:You posting to me or MDTH, or one of the other 25 Matt's here?

I have wondered about the preponderence of Matts here. I hope you all forgive me for thinking of you all as one big Matt-clump.

lucas park

Choose Display Mode